Re: [SOLVED] Rails app with maxconn 1 receiving more than 1 request at a time

From: Alexander Staubo <>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:38:08 +0200

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Willy Tarreau <> wrote:
> Do you have the ability to tell your mongrels that you are about to kill
> them, or alternatively to kill them softly ? If so, then you could write
> a health check application which will return 404 when it wants to leave,
> then exit a few seconds afterwards (the time for haproxy's health checks
> to detect it is in maintenance mode).

On a normal SIGTERM, Mongrel will close its listening socket and then wait for all current requests to finish processing. In other words, when combined with HAProxy retries, users should never notice anything when a Mongrel is killed gracefully.

If we did it your way, then Mongrel would have to keep responding to requests when told to shut down. First of all, what is it supposed to do with the requests that are *not* health checks? Return 503, thus triggering redispatch? Sounds a bit wasteful.

Secondly, how long should it wait before terminating? We have set the health check interval at 60s, so it would have to wait at least that. 60 seconds is a bit long time to wait just to restart a Mongrel server.

Thirdly, you can't speed that up by having Mongrel shut down immediately after it has received a health check and returned the 404. We have a number of redundant boxes in our cluster, each running HAProxy, each running health checks on all the Mongrel servers. So a time-based delay is the only option.

I don't know, it looks iffy.

> Also, haproxy does not send an alert
> message when a server disappears after having been in maintenance mode.

That's really the main reason for doing something like this, I think. Having HAProxy know when a backend stops *intentionally* would eliminate controlled restarts from showing up as errors in logs and on the status page.

Alexander. Received on 2008/09/14 23:38

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2008/09/14 23:45 CEST